asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sheltered housing units will be built in the year 1980-81 in England and Wales.

Some information about numbers of sheltered housing units being built will be given in local authorities' housing investment programme returns for 1981-82. Authorities have been asked to submit these by 8 August. Copies will be placed in the Library.

What steps will my hon. Friend take to ensure that the elderly are given high housing priority in these difficult days, when the programme has had to be cut back?

In the circular on this year's HIP allocation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked local authorities to give high priority, within their allocations, to special needs, particularly those of the elderly and the disabled. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that in the first five months of this year starts on new dwellings for the elderly in England represented 46 per cent. of all local authority and new town starts, compared with 26 per cent. last year.

As it is estimated that council house starts will drop from their present low record to 30,000 a year, does that not mean that such starts will be confined to houses for the elderly and the disabled? What will happen to the other half of the population, who cannot afford to buy council houses or houses on the private market? Even with the aid of a mortgage such people cannot afford to buy a house.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking to the private sector as well as to the public sector to meet the need for rented accommodation. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I hope that he will urge the Opposition Front Bench to withdraw its commitment to repeal shorthold, as that will make more rented accommodation available.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Lancaster city council is eager to sell council houses and has the best record for such sales in the North-West? Does he also accept that the council is extremely anxious that it should not be obliged to sell old people's dwellings? It has a high proportion of such dwellings which are not, strictly speaking, sheltered accommodation. Will the Minister seriously consider the amendment put forward on 21 July in the House of Lords, which would not oblige councils to sell houses that have been specifically built for and habitually occupied by, old people? At the very least, will he introduce a permanent preemption clause for councils?

My hon. Friend will be aware that that amendment was the subject of debate yesterday during consideration of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill. During the proceedings in the other place, their Lordships chose to reject that amendment decisively. I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend has made about pre-emption, before the Bill comes back to the House.

Since, in Committee, the hon. Gentleman constantly rejected any attempt to make comparisons between the Scottish Bill and the Bill relating to England and Wales, will he now give a clear answer to the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman)? As the House of Lords has voted to exclude not only sheltered accommodation, but other old people's dwellings, from compulsory sale, will the Government accept the amendment and retain it in the Housing Bill?

The answer is "No", but we shall consider pre-emption.

Shame.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from local authorities to his request for revised budgets for 1980-81.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the response to his circular to local authorities of 13 June on their revised expenditure plans.

We have asked the local authorities to return their revised, reduced expenditure plans by 1 August. Until my Department has analysed the revised plans, it will not be possible to say whether local government as a whole has made the reductions we requested.

Will my right hon. Friend not weaken in his resolve to deal with this matter, which is of great importance? Will he bear in mind those local authorities, mainly Conservative, which have cut back over the years at the request of the Labour Party? Will he deal firmly with those irresponsible authorities that have little regard for their ratepayers and financial prudence?

I welcome my hon. Friend's support. The provisions of the Bill will give to the Government, in their administration of the block grant, a more sophisticated method of allocating resources between those authorities which overspend and those which underspend. The problem goes a little wider than the difficulty facing Conservative authorities. It is clear that there are Labour as well as Conservative authorities that are complying with the Government's target. All that the authorities are doing by not complying with the Government's request is pre-empting resources from those that are. If there is to be a degree of fairness, it is important that all authorities understand that the burden must be spread equitably throughout the country.

When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no more sophisticated way of allocating rate support grant resources? Secondly, when will he wake up and accept that local authorities are responsible bodies and that his actions represent an unwarranted intrusion into local democracy?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the traditional relationship between central and local government is that the Government set the guidelines for local government expenditure. It is sometimes necessary for the Government to ask for reductions to take place, as my predecessor did in 1976. I have not yet used the draconian measures that the previous Labour Government used to secure those ends. I have tried to rest on the voluntary basis, which hon. Members prefer as a first priority. If I am not able to secure the targets that the Government have set—we shall not know that until the next few weeks have passed—I shall have to consider a range of other measures, some of which the Labour Government used rather earlier than I have done in similar circumstances.

In considering these revised budgets, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in some county and district councils that have high growth areas and new towns, one component of the increased spending is population growth? Will he bear that in mind when considering the revised budgets?

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. We shall be able to consider factors such as that under the new grant-related expenditure parts of the block grant proposals. The Government have asked local authorities to reduce by only 2 per cent. what they spent in 1978-79. In view of the magnitude of the national economic difficulties, that is not an impossible target for any authority.

The Secretary of State has referred twice to the block grant, which will begin not this year but next year. Does he recall that on Monday Sir Gervas Walker urged him to postpone the introduction of the block grant for a year, as he believes that it cannot be operated fairly and equitably next year? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Sir Gervas was motivated by malice or ignorance in advocating that postponement?

I know Sir Gervas extremely well, and I know that he would not be motivated by either of those motives. It does not serve the right hon. Gentleman well to trivialise a debate of this sort. The leaders of the local government associations are right to express their legitimate concern about the Government's proposals. That is a vital part of the democratic process. It is the Government's view that the block grant proposals will answer many of the deep-seated criticisms that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed about the present basis of regression analysis. It is upon that basis, and in the light of the work that we have done so far, that we shall press ahead with the block grant in 1981-82.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to discourage building on good agricultural land between new towns and other urban areas.

The Government's policy is, where possible, to avoid development of agriculural land and, where it must be taken, to use lower, rather than higher quality land.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. That may be the policy where possible, but will my hon. Friend please remember that there is a large amount of vacant and dormant land around new towns throughout the country? Will he consider imposing a moratorium on the use of agricultural land until that land is used?

If my hon. Friend considers carefully the measures that the Government have taken since coming into office, he will realise that we have done that which he has asked me to do. We shall ensure that underused land is brought forward for development. Only as a last resort will we consider using agricultural or green belt land.

Is not the one principal measure that the Government have taken that of virtually stopping all building? Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider yesterday's report of the Select Committee on the environment, which predicts that building starts in the private sector will stay at 100,000 and that starts in the public sector will decline to 31,000? Is that not the sort of measure that the Government are taking, rather than the measures indicated by the Minister?

In due course the Government will give their answer to the issues raised at yesterday's meeting of the Select Committee. My responsibility is for land availability. The Labour Government were not very successful in building houses or in providing land. We intend to ensure that when our economy expands—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] That will come sooner than Labour Members realise. Our intention is to ensure that shortage of land will not be a detriment to building the number of houses that we deem to be necessary.

Will my hon. Friend establish beyond doubt that at least 50,000 acres of agricultural land are used for development purposes of various sorts, while at the same time probably a quarter of a million acres are lying derelict or unused in our large towns or conurbations? I recognise the progress that the Government have made in utilising derelict urban land, but will he ask his right hon. Friend to consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ascertain whether fresh initiatives can be taken to encourage the conservation of agricultural land?

Our relationship with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is on an ongoing basis. The difference between this Government and the Labour Government is that our Departments work closely together. I assure my hon. Friend that Environment Ministers, and sometimes Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, are involved when it comes to the use of green belt land. A register of derelict land is being prepared. I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Will the Minister tell the House a little more about the relationship between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It may be ongoing, but we do not know where it is going. Have the Department's consultations on conservation covered the deplorable proposals which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has put before the House, which will make the Government's already deplorable record on conservation quite outrageous?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to give an ongoing answer, but I shall resist that. We shall be prepared to defend our record on conservation, certainly when it is compared with that of the previous Labour Government. What we have done already is quite an achievement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities on the use of the pesticide 2, 4, 5-T in municipal parks, gardens or on highway verges.

The need for advice will be considered in the light of the Government's conclusions on the present review of 2, 4, 5-T by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

Will the Minister accept that that at least gets us somewhere? Is he aware that Sheffield has already banned the use of this dangerous pesticide? Will he encourage other authorities to follow that excellent example?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the matter has been considered before. I have here the review of the safety of the use of the herbicide 2, 4, 5-T in the United Kingdom, dated March 1979, which was submitted by the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In view of further evidence, the advisory committee is reconsidering the matter. The National Union of Agricultural Workers has also produced a dossier of evidence, which is being reviewed. The advisory committee will then report.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether local authorities use that pesticide in municipal parks and gardens, and along highway verges?

My understanding is that it is used by local authorities. One or two have decided temporarily to cease to use it. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to one such authority.

Due to disquiet about that pesticide, will the Minister accept that it may not be a bad idea to ask local authorities to keep a register of where it is used in their localities?

The advisory committee will report shortly. The last report was only 16 months ago. The Royal Commission on environmental pollution, in its seventh report on agriculture and pollution, also considered the matter but did not suggest that such steps were necessary. All pesticides, even, for example, sodium chlorate, are dangerous. The question is the method and extent of their use. That is why we should adopt a sensible approach, and the Government feel that it is right to take the advice of the best qualified advisory committee on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent programme and partnership authorities have attracted private investment for urban renewal in their areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent programme and partnership authorities have attracted private investment for urban renewal in their areas.

It is not possible to measure the amount of private investment in urban renewal deriving from the many activities of partnership and programme authorities. However, my right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement on inner cities policy last September that urban programme resources should help create the right conditions for private investors.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal more can be done? I appreciate that he cannot give orders, but will he do all that he can to encourage clearing banks, pension funds and insurance funds to change their attitude to investment in inner city and urban renewal?

We are giving the matter the highest priority. In discussions that I had with the previous chairman of the Development Commission about the rural areas, I encouraged the enlargement of private sector finance, which enabled the commission virtually to double the resources available at a time of considerable public expenditure restraint. On the urban side, the Post Office superannuation fund has purchased 100,000 sq ft of new factory development, which otherwise might have fallen on the urban programme for Beckton, and the work by Legal and General in Team Valley is helping with funds. There is also the work by Commercial Union on a feasibility study for the Manchester central station site. All those projects are receiving private sector funds, and the burden does not fall entirely on public sector resources.

Order. I appeal for shorter questions and answers.

Will my hon. Friend consider ways to guarantee loans from building societies and other financial institutions in the more difficult urban areas?

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the length of my previous answer, but there is a long list of private sector investment in these projects.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, when programme and partnership authorities were introduced by the previous Government, a promise was made that the matter would be kept under review? It he aware that South Tyneside metropolitan district council, which covers my constituency of Jarrow and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has an unemployment rate of 174 per cent. or 11,784 men, women and children out of work, and only 154 notified vacancies? Will he consider regrading South Tyneside from a programme to a partnership authority?

We have been considering reviewing authorities. We have protected the volume of resources available for the urban programme, but it is not possible at present vastly to expand them. It is important to sustain programmes in designated areas so that we can see what results are achievable and monitor progress. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but will he understand that if one dissipates it widely it will be difficult to judge the impact of the urban programme.

As one of the problems of inner cities is the refusal of banks, insurance companies and large financial institutions to invest in inner cities, will the Government consider setting up a register, not of derelict public land, but of the amount of money that the clearing banks are investing in the inner areas to show how much they are concerned about urban renewal?

We are having discussions with a number of major companies, institutions and clearing banks about the ways in which they can contribute to that important objective. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Minister aware that in spite of the information that he has given today about companies and institutions moving towards investment and changing their attitudes, there is still concern about enterprise zones? Is he further aware that those bodies would like to know all the conditions attached to the establishment of the zones before making the final disposition of the allocation of their resources, to see what advantages would accrue if they sited themselves there?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an announcement yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will answer a further question on the matter today. The information about enterprise zones and our proposals will therefore become much more widely available. We see them as a major step in encouraging enterprise in some of the most derelict areas of our industrial cities. We hope that they will make a useful contribution to regeneration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the results of his review of new town policy.

The Government's conclusions on target dates for winding up the development corporations of the first and second generation new towns were stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on 23 June. We expect to announce our conclusions on the third generation new towns before the end of the year.

Bearing in mind the uncertainty about how much agricultural land will need to be used, and about whether enough jobs can be created to meet current third generation target figures, will my hon. Friend ensure that that announcement is made as quickly as possible?

I recognise what my hon. Friend says about the need for the maximum degree of certainty. These are important decisions. They affect six major new towns, and they require careful evaluation. We shall do all that we can to produce the results for the third generation as soon as possible before the end of the year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is frustration and despair in the new towns? When the long-delayed and long-awaited policy emerges, will it reflect the opposition that I and the hon. Gentleman's colleague heard at Harlow at a conference on new towns? Is he aware that there is particular hostility to selling commercial and industrial assets and the terms on which Development Corporation housing is likely to be transferred to district councils?

I have almost completed a series of visits to third generation towns, and I have visited towns in the North-East. It is not my view that there is a mood of frustration and despair. Each of the new towns that I visited is making an important contribution to industrial development and the creation of new jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report his correspondence with those London boroughs which have yet to complete the takeover of housing stock from the Greater London Council.

I have today placed copies of the consultation letter sent to local authorities, and other relevant correspondence, in the Library of the House.

Why did the Minister, earlier this month, send bullying letters to the eight London boroughs, giving them wholly inadequate time to respond, when his own powers were in doubt? Although no date has been set, the eight London boroughs have decided to appeal. Will the Minister delay the enforced handover of dilapidated housing, which in many cases has been stripped of decent assets, until the courts have disposed of the matter, instead of continuing to ride roughshod over the courts?

The Government, unlike their predecessors, do not try to ride roughshod over the courts. The situation is perfectly clear. As was said in the letter, consultation was without prejudice to the outcome of proceedings brought by certain local authorities.

Will my hon. Friend reconfirm that the sooner Greater London is treated in the same way as the rest of the country, and has one housing authority and one level of responsibility instead of two, the better it will be for all concerned? Many of us would consider that to be a substantial improvement.

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I think he will understand that if I expressed any view on the merits of the case I should be prejudging my right hon. Friend's decision, which he must take in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Does the hon. Member intend, after the court case is settled, to consult the tenants direct? People in my constituency bitterly oppose the prospect of the handover, not for any love of their Tory GLC landlords, but because the financial provisions that are on offer from the GLC mean that the boroughs will not have the necessary money to put right the rundown state of those estates after three years of Tory rule.

Of course we shall take account of any views that tenants care to express. It is interesting to recall that about two years ago the London borough of Camden asked its GLC tenants what they wanted. When they said that they wanted to be transferred to Camden, the council appeared to drop the results of that questionnaire.

Will my hon. Friend encourage the London boroughs and the GLC, by correspondence or any other means, to solve their own housing problems in their own areas and not to purchase land for housing in rural areas?

As my hon. Friend knows, the purchase of land in areas outside London requires permission from the Secretary of State and is, in any case, contained in the allocation of money under the annual programmes. The wholesale grabbing of land that went on under the last Administration will not find favour with this one.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give guidance in accordance with section 12 (2) of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to all authorities having international ports or airports within their areas on the implementation of the Act.

A code or guidance already exists for the use of all authorities with responsibilities under the Act. We are currently reviewing both the Act and the code of guidance to see whether any changes may be necessary.

Will the Minister bear in mind that some boroughs, particularly Hillingdon, have already turned down offers of help from the GLC? Will he take this opportunity to remind the London borough of Hillingdon that it is morally objectionable to use homeless families as political pawns to serve its own rather dubious political ends?

I doubt whether the hon. Member is qualified to ask me to tell the London borough of Hillingdon its moral duties. I am satisfied that the views of the London borough of Hillingdon—and the views of the London Boroughs Association, which have been conveyed to the Government—will be given due weight in the review.

Does the Minister appreciate that it really is pathetic to make a political issue out of this? Does he also appreciate that in the Channel ports, for example, there is a special problem, and that people on the housing waiting lists suffer very severely? They will continue to do so until there is some revision of the rules.

I understand the frustration of thousands of people on waiting lists who find that their places, which they have been keeping for years, are suddenly overtaken for one reason or another. That is why the Government are taking some time to consider the whole process. If my hon. Friend's authority wishes to express any views, it should do so as soon as possible.

In view of the Select Committee's report, published yesterday, is it not clear that the Government's policies are leading to an acute crisis that will make many more people homeless? Why should thousands of people, waiting desperately for housing, have to wait longer and longer on the waiting lists and become homeless as a result of Tory domga over council housing?

In view of the dogma of the Labour Party in trying unsuccessfully to kill shorthold, such a criticism lies ill in the mouth of the hon. Member. With regard to the press reports about the Select Committee, I must tell the House that when the Government have a chance to read the Committee's report in full, a comment will be made, as is normal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was not the intention of Parliament in 1977 to impose on a borough such as Hillingdon, which has an international airport within its boundaries, a national duty to house people from all over the world at the expense of the indigenous population of that borough? Is my hon. Friend aware of the amendment in the names of 56 hon. Members to early-day motion No. 786? Will he amend the Act as soon as possible in the interests of the people of this country? [Interruption.]

We are reviewing this matter as quickly as we can. I understand the depth of sincerity with which my hon. Friend puts the views of his constituents, and I find it somewhat objectionable to hear the comments from the Labour Benches.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received supporting the domestic rating system.

None, Sir.

Does that not suggest, to put it mildly, that the domestic rating system does not have many friends? In view of the unfairness of the system, particularly to single-income households, when will my right hon. Friend introduce legislation to abolish or reform the system?

Had my hon. Friend turned the question the other way around, the answer would have been very different. I am considering the issue of domestic rates. In my Department we have begun working on the alternative to the present system. I shall have to ask the House to bear with me until we are able to complete the detailed work that is necessary to enable us to take a considered judgment before bringing any proposals to the House

I am sure that the Secretary of State has in front of him the figures that would result from increasing VAT or income tax to provide the equivalent of the domestic rate. Will he give us those figures? In view of his dictation to local authorities, is it not time that those taxes took over some of the burdens of domestic rates?

It would be wrong to give the impression that the Government are committed to those alternatives. We are looking at all the alternatives, of which those are only two. It would be wrong to plant figures in the minds of hon. Members as if that indicated the only option that the Government were considering.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a poll tax is among the alternatives that he is considering?

Yes. I am looking at the poll tax, in that I see it as my duty to look at all the alternatives. That is one of them.

Why should the House show any patience with the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that in 1976 he said that the abolition of the domestic rating system was one of the wisest political commitments that he and his party had ever made? Did he make that statement not knowing how he would replace the domestic rating system? As the alternatives to domestic rating were well aired in the Layfield report, which does he intend to pursue—local income tax, a block Government grant or a local sales tax?

The hon. Member might wait until we look at all the alternatives. He should remember that since the initial commitment was made to abolish domestic rating we have had a Labour Government who dramatically increased the levels of income tax. It is the reduction of that income tax that has priority over and above the question of domestic rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of progress on his monitoring of the water authorities.

I am currently considering a number of issues arising from my meetings with water authority chairmen and chief executives, including issues of accountability and manpower levels. I am also considering the performance aims to be set for next year. The most recent batch of references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission included a major water authority.

As a result of my right hon. Friend's inquiries, has he been made further aware of the unsatisfactory situation whereby water charges in some parts of the country greatly exceed those levied in other parts? This is largely unrelated to the efficiency or otherwise of the individual water authorities. What is the Government's approach to this not unimportant matter?

My hon. Friend will have noticed that I referred in my answer to performance aims. One of the approaches that we are adopting is the introduction of performance indicators—initiated by the previous Government—following on to performance aims, to start to get a real measure of the performance of individual water authorities. It is true that they vary. This is due partly to the geographical situation and the availability of cheaper resources and partly to the incidence of smaller sewerage plants, as opposed to major, more economic plants. This is a matter of the general efficiency of the industry, to which we are giving particular attention.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most useful actions that he can take is to ensure that the authorities have adequate resources for capital expenditure so that they can do their job of reducing pollution in the nation's rivers, especially in the industrial areas? Does he realise that the progress that was being made in improving the badly polluted rivers Don and Rother in South Yorkshire has come to a stop because of the Government's attitude to public expenditure?

I do not know what justification the hon. Gentleman has for the instance that he cites, of which I am not aware. We have broadly tried to safeguard the capital investment programme of the water industry, but it is a substantial programme. More than £100 million is being spent, for instance, on one sewerage scheme in Tyneside. The scale of resources required is massive to catch up with years of neglect and the acceptance of levels of pollution that are no longer acceptable. We shall do the best that we can within the resources available.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, because of the scale of expenditure by water authorities, it is crucial that they manage their own finances better? Is he aware that the Southern water authority, for instance, does not even have a finance committee to supervise those expenditures? I hope that he has taken that factor into consideration in his talks with them.

My hon. Friend and a number of hon. Members came to see me about the Southern water authority. I am seized of the point that he made about its structure and how it operates without a finance committee. Water authorities have wide responsibilities and deal with substantial sums of public money. This is one of the aspects that I shall consider with the chairmen concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now able to announce the location of the proposed enterprise zones.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the locations of the proposed enterprise zones yesterday. Those for England are: on Tyneside, parts of Newcastle and Gateshead; on Merseyside, Speke; in Greater Manchester, parts of the Salford docks area and Trafford Park industrial estate; and in London's docklands, the Isle of Dogs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's initiative on enterprise zones will be welcomed by everyone on this side of the House and the country as central to the regeneration of the economy? Will he when reviewing other potential sites, consider placing them in areas where the benefit from them will not be destroyed by hostile Labour authorities?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support of this imaginative concept. I should go over old ground if I were to repeat that the object of the exercise is to establish enterprise zones in areas where there is a degree of welcome and co-operation. There are far more authorities asking for enterprise zones than we are able to provide. Large numbers of those authorities are Labour controlled.

Has the Secretary of State received any proposals from the Freedom Association concerning enterprise zones suggesting that legislation covering health and safety, trade union organisation and minimum rates of pay should be ignored? If the Secretary of State receives any such proposals, will he reject them out of hand?

I should have to look carefully to see who had written to me on what aspects of the matter to answer specifically the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked. I think that I can assure him that it would not be my intention, or that of my colleagues responsible for other facets of the legislation, to do anything that would prejudice public health or safety.

When does my right hon. Friend hope to be able to announce the location of the Midlands enterprise zone?

I hope to do so within the next few weeks. I realise that it is a matter of urgency. I would want to enable that area, once chosen, to catch up with the rate of progress that we hope to make in the areas already chosen.

Do the Government intend to declare north Wandsworth an enterprise zone?

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have announced the sites that we have chosen. There is a wide range of applications from other areas, but we shall be able to choose only another one or two in the first round. After that, there will undoubtedly be a significant pause. I am committed to one of the sites yet to be announced in the Midlands. It is unlikely that the one remaining candidate will not be chosen from somewhere in the North of England.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from either side on this question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be Conservative philosophy to have enterprise zones in every area of the United Kingdom, because that means less restriction, less government and more business? When will we get on with it?

I hope that my hon. Friend will see yesterday's announcement as a step in the right direction, if not the culmination of all his wildest hopes. This is an important experiment. If the lessons work as we hope, there will be opportunities to apply them elsewhere. The House will realise that substantial public resources go with the commitment, at a time when these have to be conserved.

Does the Secretary of State agree that intervention is required by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the extent of about £50 million a year? If these zones are successful, even by the Government's criteria, it will mean that they are successful because of public money. If they fail, they will be a waste of public money. Are not both policies contrary to the stated belief of the Government?

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a narrow doctrinal point. I understand that the £50 million is the full cost of the rating concession that would fall to the Chancellor if the enterprise zones were successful. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to calculate the enormous increase in wealth, jobs and investment that will have been brought about if we find ourselves with a £50 million bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities in respect of the level of car allowances for local government employees.

No, Sir. The rate of car allowances for local government employees is negotiated nationally between the employers and the unions concerned. and is thus a matter for each individual employing authority.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate per mile for local government employees now stands at the staggering figure of 31.5p, which means, on the basis of a car doing 30 miles to the gallon, that these town hall employees are being reimbursed at the rate of nearly £10 a gallon? How can that be justified? Is it not a further indication that the financing of local government administration is out of control?

The way that my hon. Friend has put the question is somewhat misleading. The rate that he mentions is only at the bottom level, up to 1,000 miles. It falls smartly, in the same scale of cubic capacity, to 8-4p a mile for a car that is being used for more than 9,000 miles in a year. If my hon. Friend has based his question on the letter in The Times, I must tell him that the letter was extremely misleading. This is a matter for local authorities. We want them to negotiate in an effective and responsible way. While they are doing so, it would be helpful if the figures were accurately reported.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis and by what criteria he selected the 21 areas where vacant and underused land would be registered; and if he will make a statement.

The selection took into account the possibilities for land release in these areas, the opportunities this would give to developers, and the extent to which land records were already available. The districts chosen are also mainly urban in character since it is in urban areas that the benefits of registers are chiefly to be gained.

I welcome that reply. Does my right hon. Friend accept that registers do not necessarily ensure that local authorities sell off their land banks? Does he agree, therefore, that he should take steps to ensure that land banks are reduced, to the general benefit of local ratepayers?

I am glad to be able to commend to my hon. Friend the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which gives me powers, in the last resort, to direct the disposal of the land that we are discussing. We are talking not only of local authority land, but of land owned by public bodies. Large acreages of land are owned by the nationalised industries.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he accept that 250,000 acres of vacant and derelict land are ripe for development? In the areas that he has not designated for registers to be set up, will he continue to encourage local authorities and other bodies to release land for sale by way of partnerships, for the building of "half and half" homes for people on local authority housing lists?

I should like to go further. Once we have established a basis of understanding about the original 21 registers, I intend to move further and designate additional areas for registers. That is the most effective way of achieving the results that my hon. Friend has in mind. There is nothing to stop local authorities from getting on with the work of preparing for registers—an important step in bringing about a quicker disposal of land.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department is satisfied with the budget for expenditure in the next financial year by Cheshire county council; and if he will make a statement.

We have no information regarding the expenditure plans of Cheshire county council for the next financial year. We have asked all authorities to reduce their expenditure in this financial year by 2 per cent. below what they actually spent in 1978-79.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is increasingly difficult for hon. Members to explain to their constituents why their borough council can peg the rate for four consecutive years, while the county council increases its rate by more than 25 per cent. each year? Will my right hon. Friend examine Cheshire's expenditure plans carefully with that in mind? Does he accept that borough councils can peg the rate, but that county councils are unable to do so because of their spendthrift policies?

It is important to recognise the different services provided by the different levels of authorities. One cannot ignore the impact of Clegg on county council expenditure. It has had severe implications. It is difficult to explain what is happening in county, district and metropolitan counties. It is difficult to obtain accurate information so that electors, councillors and Members of Parliament understand what is happening. Clause 2 of our Bill has been welcomed widely because it will enable more meaningful information to be published by all authorities so that we have a better understanding about what is happening.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. Friend's question reflects the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty in many authorities, particularly in the county authorities, about how the Government's policies will operate next year? If it is the Government's intention to penalise 20 authorities on the transitional arrangements, may we be assured that even if the 20 authorities cannot be named before the recess, there will be a statement about the rules under which they will be penalised, under a Bill which has not been passed, but which the Minister intends to operate in November?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot determine which authorities will be affected by the provisions until we have the revised budgets. It would be wrong not to wait for the revised budgets, which will determine the levels of spending proposed by the different authorities for this year.

Will the Minister confirm that the clawback of which he is so critical will operate next year? If the Minister proposes to penalise 20 authorities in November, is it not intolerable that such authorities will not know the rules under which action might be taken? I ask not for the names, but for the rules. Is the Minister aware that if we are not given them before the House rises the Opposition will pursue the matter in every way open to them?

We have made clear in the House, in Committee and at length in circulars to local authorities, the ground rules for the transitional arrangements. They have been made absolutely clear, and local authorities understand the position. When we receive the revised budgets we shall be in a better position to give further information. We shall then put our decisions before the House for its approval or otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the allocation of resources for those sporting authorities who refused to participate in the Olympic Games.

This was one of a number of matters that I discussed very recently with the chairman and principals of the Sports Council at one of our regular informal meetings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the presence in Moscow of so many British athletes is an insult to the British Government and British taxpayers, who over the years have spent millions of pounds on providing facilities for them? Is it not about time that the Government either withdrew their facilities or asked the athletes to come home?

The Government have made their position clear in relation to the Olympic Games in Moscow. Little more can be added at this stage. My hon. Friend will know that the Sports Council has not assisted financially in the transport or other arrangements for the team in Moscow.

Is the Sports Council, or are civil servants, to give any money to bodies such as the Royal Yacht Squadron and the equestrian team, which refused to go to Moscow? If that is so, is it because the Sports Council has refused to muddy its fingers, quite rightly in the opinion of many of us, in something that amounts to bribery by the Government?

That is a convoluted question. The body to which the hon. Gentleman referred is not the Royal Yacht Squadron, but the Royal Yachting Association. The Government made a firm commitment to assist those sports which decided not to participate in Moscow, and that we are doing.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us, notwithstanding the politically mistaken view of the athletes who are participating in the games, have great pride in the achievements of British athletes in Moscow? Will he undertake not to take action that is in any way vindictive, petty or mean-minded?

Of course we shall not take such action. I warmly welcome the successes of our medal winners and of the athletes who have broken British records in Moscow. However, I should have preferred them not to go, and to have taken the advice of the Government, bearing in mind that Russia has invaded Afghanistan and is committing atrocities there.

As the Minister responsible for sport echoes the Prime Minister's good wishes to athletes who have won medals, may I ask whether the Prime Minister intends to follow precedent and give a reception for the team when it returns?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister and the Government do not indulge in U-turns. We have made it clear that we do not approve of our Olympic team being in Moscow. Naturally, it cannot expect a warm welcome on its return.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to designate the area of the docklands urban development order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to designate the area of the two urban development corporations.

I intend to make the orders designating the urban development areas in London and Merseyside docklands as soon as possible after the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to draw the boundaries to include some of the blighted hinterland of the London docks, especially the North Greenwich peninsular?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I do not wish to give assurances at this stage about precisely where the boundaries will be drawn. In general terms, the hinterland of the disused docks is bound to be included, but I should not wish to go as far as to indicate which local authority areas are likely to be chosen.

In view of the mess that Liverpool planners have made of the inner area of that city, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they have as little as possible to do with the planning necessary in the enterprise zone at Speke?

I think that my hon. Friend will understand that the enterprise zone concept means that local and central Government have to agree the planning régime that will apply in each zone. It is a condition of establishing an enterprise zone that such agreement should be reached before designation. Therefore, it will be for me to establish in my own mind that the right conditions exist for an enterprise zone.

Will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to discuss with those on Merseyside the problem of the attraction of the three schemes—the inner city partnership the urban development corporation and now a new enterprise zone? There are not sufficient resources to support them all. Will the Secretary of State undertake a review, and at the same time examine, the criteria used to appoint people to office in the corporations?

It is not necessary to have a review other than the continuing attention that is paid to these matters by my Department. We are apprised of the urgency of the real problems on Merseyside. That is why we are giving them so much attention.